Private motorised transport is not the enemy
Throwing a tin of Heinz finest over something or gluing yourself to it turns out to be a surprisingly effective strategy to get yourself noticed. Sure you’ll get seething derision from a lot of people who perceive it as a criminal attack on said ‘besouped’ item, but you’ll get the publicity you want.
Wading through the quagmire of commentary generated by such actions there is often little of value to be discerned, and the message itself, no matter how poignant or well argued, seems to be corrupted by this noise. Basically, by employing this strategy you successfully get your five seconds of fame, but it is not a means to an end: raising awareness about an issue using the same tactic repeatedly offers diminishing returns.
As a moderate individual that likes to consider both sides of an argument, and who in this case believes climate change is an enormously concerning issue, I am disappointed with the direction the discussion is heading.
Some people do not want to accept their own behaviour has an impact on the climate and that we are all to a greater or lesser extent complicit. Ironically the most vocal support and opposition of groups like 'Just Stop Oil' exacerbates this problem. One example is a popular automotive Twitter user pointing out that meat and cruise ships contribute to climate change, so why aren’t those naïve environmentalists protesting about that instead? Of course the reality is the majority of activists don’t want to simply take away your Porsche. They will understand and care about all major emission producing forms of consumption. Clearly though, unless it was wilful ignorance on the part of the Twitter poster, the overall message is not getting across.
Similarly there are some heritage skills campaigners banging the drum for 'reduce, reuse, recycle' over consumption. This is a worthy cause but it is often combined with a lack of acceptance that we can tackle environmental problems from multiple angles, including increased use of electric vehicles. While building new EVs produces a lot of emissions, it is farcical to pretend we can just stop production of all EVs and maintain existing vehicles on the road ad infinitum. We also can’t just turn off the taps when it comes to oil without serious economic consequences for everyone, but we can transition away from it - the question is how far and how fast to go.
While we flounder around in this discussion, in many cases 'disagreeing to agree' on a lot of points despite a huge amount of common ground, climate change is not only affecting people’s livelihoods but also claiming lives.
In addition, the polarisation that occurs when a form of activism subdivides society into 'participants and objectors' is also dangerous. It cannot be assumed those that use a car are by definition privileged people and actively making a choice to harm the environment. For many the use of private motorised transport is not an option, but a necessity. It is costly and polluting, but the alternatives in the numerous countries that neglect them are not good enough. To pretend that they are a viable option for everyone is not helpful. I accept most protesters are aware of this, but the perception of their actions by a lot of people is ignorance of the necessity of being a motorist.
Rightly or wrongly many motorists feel increasingly blamed for contributing to climate change. This descent into whataboutery of people arguing on all sides of the discussion is a problem. In the UK since 2016 the disastrous consequences of divide and conquer politics has been plain to see, and in the 2020s wider global events have demonstrated where this leads, threatening the planet itself with ever more imminent destruction.
However, rather than focus on the grim realities of threats facing people and the natural environment, I feel it is important to be reminded of the liberating power of social changes that have occurred in the 20th century and how they could continue to shape a bright future beyond.
What has private motorised transport done for us?
The early 1900s saw the beginnings of mass produced vehicles with combustion engines. An emerging technology developed over centuries was finally ready to explode onto the market creating a ubiquitous product and a booming economic success story. Early Oldsmobiles might have been a curio for the rich North Americans, but before long the Ford Model T arrived and became an essential form of transport for the wealthy in many developed countries. By the 1920s the era of the car had arrived. Many countries were engaged in car manufacture by the 50s and in the 60s owning a car was becoming increasingly common for working class households. This is where the revolutionary social change caused by widespread vehicle usage and ownership really started to take effect.
Once car ownership became a reality for many, a raft of opportunity for business and leisure became accessible to the masses that had only previously been enjoyed (for centuries by horse and carriage) by the rich. Unfortunately for many countries it also precipitated a decline in other forms of transport, the true impact of which lasts to this day. Regardless, the advent of the car’s dominance did elevate living standards for many.
Where did it all go wrong?
If driving is so great, why then do many of us spend days sat in traffic jams every year, with our stress levels rising in synchrony with the temperature gauges of our cars? In fact is driving even relevant or important in today’s world, despite the huge social benefits it historically bestowed upon people?
These are the kinds of questions we should be asking about transport in the 21st century. And it is precisely because the conversation is not openly discussing these matters that we have ended up in this situation. Furthermore whether or not you believe that private motorised transport has had its day, it must be accepted that we are in a transition period, where we do not yet even hold the ultimate answers to these questions. Of course we must accelerate towards the many solutions that will be required to solve these problems. But just as we haven’t invented instant teleportation, we cannot magically arrive at a utopian end-game of free, easy and environmentally neutral transportation.
Where can we go next?
At a time of economic hardship for many, soaring profits for oil companies and woeful political leadership, there needs to be more efforts to unite users of private transport and environmental campaigners. Those who benefit from the oil industry the most should be contributing the most to the solving the problems it creates.
That is not to say behaviours and individual actions don’t matter. I think it is important for activists to keep awareness of climate change high on the public agenda. But I also believe we now need specific campaigns for discrete changes that don’t leave those who currently rely on cars out in the cold. Nobody wants to waste months, if not years, of their lives sitting in traffic jams. And while everyone can make some individual personal choices that may reduce their dependency on cars, it is not realistic or socially healthy to expect everyone to give up owning or driving a car altogether.
We also need some recognition that for a few of us, every now and again, driving can be a real pleasure. I believe it’s not just the sensations of speed and the thrill of the risk involved, but the intrinsic connection with driving’s socially liberating freedom that is behind this enjoyment.
I know as a car enthusiast, with everything going on in the world, there is not a huge movement behind the preservation of driving for pleasure. It’s a shame, but I accept it is an increasingly niche pursuit. What I can’t accept is the idea that private motorised transport is the enemy of environmental activists, whether it is perpetrated by car-lovers or activists themselves. Cars are not the enemy of the people, and they were once a liberator of them. I hope whatever transport solutions the future holds, this liberating freedom, remains something as many people as possible can enjoy.